15 replies to this topic

[Gary Davies]

Pardon me if this has been discussed here previously and pardon me, too, if my question does not reach the minimum standard of technical savvy for The Technical Forum. I am but a humble visitor from The Nostalgia Forum and am poorly schooled in this newfangled aerodynamic malarkey.

I refer to the ongoing debate about speeds/safety/driver input with current F-1 cars. I am one who feels that the driver has become a smaller - too small - part of the equation over the years. I have watched the arguments rage back and forth about the desirability of 'de- electronicking' the cars (if you get my drift) as well as the feasibility of effectively doing it so that there is no cheating. Some of the debate is laughable, some clearly betrays a large vested interest and some goes right over my head.

So what about this? Make the rear wing a lot simpler and somewhat smaller in area.

Just that.

As a non-aerodynamicist I'm thinking a single plane, either dead flat or with only a very limited degree of curvature, nothing resembling a gurney flap, the tiniest of endplates and a prescribed maximum area and location. Of course, there would need to be an appropriate regulation to prevent the sudden sprouting of assorted wings and winglets from various parts of the bodywork.

Naturally, my suggestion implies on the face of it a horribly unbalanced car so straightaway, there would need to be some (voluntary) reduction in frontal downforce.

Would the cars be harder to drive, to get close to their optimum pace?

Sure! And good! Tony Brooks once said something to the effect that the best car was one with too much power for its chassis. "My" car would of course have far greater braking distances through much reduced downforce, which is good, n'est-ce pas? I read recently that a current F-1 car goes from 200km/h to 100km/h in 0.6 seconds. Oh my goodness, how do you pass under brakes with stopping power like that?

I have resisted getting into other areas like engine size and configuration, manual gearchanging, steel brakes, slick tyres and traction control. Whilst I realise that the question of upping the percentage of the equation that resides with driver input can become very complex, I still wonder if a simple (simplistic? ) rear wing change might be an answer.

If it can, it would easy and cheap to instigate, easy to police and by heck, there would still be still room for a large advertisement!

[alexbiker]

I'm at my parents place, so I don't have books handy, but I would point out that the rear wing is not the major contribitor to rear downforce - the diffuser is. I can't give you the actual figure, but others round here have Peter Wright's book on the F2000, which will show that the rear wing isn't that efficient - as evidenced by this season, where the removal of one element has not prevented a 4-second reduction in lap times seen at Malaysia.

I'm at a loss as to some of the things that could be done, but I think circuit and rule design have a lot to do with it - the races last year such as Silverstone produced top level entertainment and many, many overtaking moves, with a winner coming through the field - all with as many driver aids as you like. I'd like to see a gradual relaxation of a lot of restrictions, but to really start cranking up some others -

Another point is - the easier it gets to drive, the faster they go. And still, the same top people win - Schumacher in 2000, Schumacher in 2003. We had an incredible season last year, but somehow the FIA thought it needed borking up, and so now Ferrari are back on top by miles.

The FIA worry me - it seems they're introducing rules for the sake of it, and not for any reason at all. Spec rear wings, single engines for three races? This is not F1. As for the notion of cost reduction, it's patently ridiculous. With the tightest of restrictions, clever ideas will not help any team - the only way to win will be to throw development budget at what's already legal - make the tub lighter, the underbody aero more efficient, the gearbox 1ms faster. . . . races are won in the wind tunnel, the CFD lab and the simulator rig, not by coming up with a better idea. It's not a spec series as regards parts, but is when it comes to ideas.

Alex

[derstatic]

Since this topic is about wings I just have to ask what this new BAR rear wing is. There is so much talk going on about it and one newssite even said it was mounted on Jensons car in Bahrain and that Williams made a protest to the FIA about it. I cant anything odd on any BAR in Bahrain or anywhere else so could someone explain what its about? A picture would be nice aswell.

[Torquer]

For the life of me I can't figure out why people, including the FIA, are so fixated on the rear wing. It is the smaller front wing and the front downforce that does most of the work. The front wing makes the car turn and allows it to brake as well as it does. The front wing creates speed and the rear wing is for stability.
Reducing the rear wing will destabilize the car and force teams to develope the diffuser and other devices further. Reducing the front wing will decrease lap times, slower cornering speeds, increase braking distances and improve racing.

[perfectelise]

You almost answered your own question there. Reducing effectiveness of the rear wing will force teams to reduce front downforce, otherwise balance is lost.

Should the FIA be looking into reducing downforce form the rear diffuser, it's almost invisible and not required for advertising space.

[alexbiker]

Originally posted by Torquer
The front wing makes the car turn and allows it to brake as well as it does. The front wing creates speed and the rear wing is for stability.

Er what? What do you think makes the rear follow the front and not just hurl the car off. They both create speed by increasing grip. Watch some of the old stuff where some peeps lost rear wings - they went off backwards the first time they tried to turn in.

Alex

[Chevy II Nova]

Originally posted by derstatic
Since this topic is about wings I just have to ask what this new BAR rear wing is. There is so much talk going on about it and one newssite even said it was mounted on Jensons car in Bahrain and that Williams made a protest to the FIA about it. I cant anything odd on any BAR in Bahrain or anywhere else so could someone explain what its about? A picture would be nice aswell.

The story is rubish. It was a design that was turned down by the FIA when other teams presented it, and BAR got the same treatment. The Williams bit is BS.

[alexbiker]

Originally posted by Chevy II Nova


The story is rubish. It was a design that was turned down by the FIA when other teams presented it, and BAR got the same treatment. The Williams bit is BS.

Really? ITVF1 are quoting a source within Williams directly:

"We are having to fight on all fronts and that means in technical discussion for future designs as well.

"This wing idea has been batted around in the FIA Technical Working Group but Williams couldn't afford someone else having the advantage of it, even for one race. By the time it had been outlawed the damage would have been done."

That sounds fairly believable - a word for word quote is not the best way to come up with bullshit - that's usually more the "sources say that" and then a whole load of deliberately misinterpreted and rearranged stuff.

Alex

[Chevy II Nova]

I think I recall Bira/Atlas reporting differantly.

[Torquer]

Originally posted by perfectelise
You almost answered your own question there. Reducing effectiveness of the rear wing will force teams to reduce front downforce, otherwise balance is lost.

They won't reduce front downforce and they haven't. They will find other ways to gain back that rear downforce. Look at BAR for example. They may also move the weight around to help balance the car but they will not reduce the front downforce to acomplish that.

[Torquer]

Originally posted by alexbiker


Er what? What do you think makes the rear follow the front and not just hurl the car off. They both create speed by increasing grip. Watch some of the old stuff where some peeps lost rear wings - they went off backwards the first time they tried to turn in.

Alex

There are many more ways to compensate for the reduced rear downforce. There are also many more ways to gain back that lost rear downforce. If the FIA reduced the front downforce the teams are extremely limited on what they could do. Front wing is for speed and rear wing is for stability.

[kilcoo316]

Hmmm, I wonder would this work;

halve the size of the front tyres
make the rear wing profile uniform from a point 10 cm from the centreline of the car to their tip (i.e. ban endplates, and force the teams to mount the wings at the centre.

These changes may (or may not) make the drivers go back to the oversteery driving through corners (like 70s) as the rear tyres provide too much grip in comparison to front, so the car has to be steered on the trottle (thus f**king up traction control), with the endplates gone, the drag of the rear wing is increased, and also it may operate better in yaw (oversteer) conditions.

Would it make F1 into a better spectacle, lets face it, if MS and JPM etc were drifting through the corners, it wouldn't really matter about overtaking would it?

[Chan]

Originally posted by Torquer

Front wing is for speed and rear wing is for stability.

I don't want to sound rude but that is nonsense. The rear wing is set up to attain a top speed at a particular drag level. The front wing setting then balances the downforce created at the rear. All F1 cars are set up on this principal.

Racing car aerodynamicists are primarily interested in creating downforce. If it comes with a low drag level then that is a bonus but it is (generally) not the intention.

[paulogman]

what about reducing the front wing effectiveness drastically.

in that i mean make it like the front wings that were used on champ cars for a super speedway. they were more like glorified turning vanes than the highly sensitive wings used on f1 cars now.

if this type of wing were used and a standard large high drag low downforce rear wing was used the teams could be allowed more freedom to work on underfloor aero dynamics.

the sponsors would be satisfied as the big rear wing endplates would still be there as advertising hoarding, and the teams would be satisfied as they would have underfloor freedom of design.

would this make the cars more stable and also less sensitive to following another car closely through a corner?

[MrAerodynamicist]

What happened to the standard rear wing the FIA proposed? I know it was originally penciled in, moved back a year, then I don't recall anything since.

[alexbiker]

I believe the teams killed the idea under the Concorde Agreement.

Good thing to, re: F3000 comment in new rules thread.

Alex